The names Lynddie England, Janice Karpinksi and Charles Granier became synonymous with the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. But we know now that those who directed the torture from the Pentagon, who set the conditions on the ground in that prison, were never held truly accountable. The only ones who did time were the low ranking National Guardsmen and intelligence officers. Then-Brigadier Gen. Karpinski (who didn’t go to jail but was relieved of her command and was demoted in rank) was clearly the scapegoat among the top brass.
Karpinksi always contended that she was sacrificed (and revelations since bear her out) and that the torture in part had been put into motion in part by interrogators supplied by the private defense contractor CACI. There is still hope, a thin thread, however, that CACI will be punished for its complicity in the torture, which not only included the aforementioned, Geneva Convention-violating atrocities, but according to the 13-year-old Center for Constitutional Rights suit on behalf of three former detainees: sensory deprivation, beatings, tasering, withholding of food and water, electric shocks, and sexual abuse.
We know that the so-called "torture memos" drafted by John Yoo, then-Assistant Attorney General in the Bush Administration, were used to set the gears in motion for what was called “harsh interrogation techniques” and U.S. detention centers across the Global War on Terror. We know Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller oversaw the Guantanamo Bay prison, at which there was widespread accusations of similar abuse. Evidence suggests that his deployment to Abu Ghraib to “Gitmoize” the Iraqi hellhole was instigated by none other than Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Apparently, mission accomplished.
CACI has denied all allegations and has contended that as a government contractor it is immune from lawsuits anyway, but in June the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear its appeal and the case is finally headed to trial. CACI had managed to get this case tossed out at least twice but it was reinstated upon appeal. They are trying for a third time, but at a hearing on Friday, the U.S. District Court judge overseeing the case seemed skeptical. So are we. We know how much the contractor has benefitted from our wars after 9/11 and how much money it put into lobbying for the U.S. to stay in Afghanistan.
Yesterday, the Center for International Policy and the Costs of War Project issued a new report finding that defense contractors received upwards of half of taxpayer-funded Pentagon budgets over the last 20 years. It is time they are held accountable for what they did with it.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is the Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft.
Saddam Saleh, a former prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison shows a picture, showing himself in the middle of the group of prisoners, during an interview with Reuters, in Iraqi capital Baghdad on May 17, 2004. Imprisoned at Abu Ghraib for four months, Saleh spent 18 days, 23 hours a day, chained naked by his arms and legs to the bars of his prison cell, and it was Charles Graner, he says, who meted out the worst of the torture, humiliation and abuse. Picture taken May 17, 2004. REUTERS/Oleg Popov OP/WS
To photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump walks with Col. Paul R. Pawluk, Vice Commander for the 89th Airlift Wing, before boarding Marine One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., June 21, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
President Donald Trump told the American people tonight in a brief address to the nation that Iran's nuclear program has been ""completely totally obliterated" after U.S. airstrikes on Iran overnight into Sunday morning, Tehran time.
He congratulated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who launched Israel's strikes against Iran on June 13 and has been asking for U.S. assistance ever since. "We have worked as a team like no team has worked together before."
According to Trump and confirmed by reports earlier, the mountain facility at Fordo was struck, as well as the enrichment plant at Natanz, as well as a another site at Isfahan. The strikes were carried out in part by B-2s, which can carry payloads of 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs. Later reports indicated that dozens of bunker busters were used on Fordo and Natanz, and that Navy submarines fired 30 TLAM cruise missiles at the Natanz and Isfahan sites.
Trump praised the "brilliant military minds" who helped plan the successful attacks — "the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades."
The said now there "will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater for Iran than we have witnessed in the last many days," he added, noting there "are many other targets." He then proceeded to say "God Bless the Middle East, God Bless Israel" and then blessed the U.S. military.
His remarks came after he first announced the strikes around 8 PM EST on his Truth Social account:
Adam Weinstein, a Quincy Institute Middle East fellow who served as a combat Marine in Afghanistan, said the U.S. has now officially put the 40,000 troops in the Middle East in harm's way, a warning that many had tried to convey to the president and administration all week in the run up to tonight's action.
"You’ve put every U.S. troop and embassy in the region at risk and squandered America’s diplomatic leverage—though you’ll likely think you’ve strengthened it."
Some of the biggest MAGA supporters who had been against U.S. war with Iran have so far not moved.
“Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war,” posted Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been among the most vocal in the run up to the strikes.
“There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer”
Lawmakers pounced on the fact the president did not have Congressional authorization to attack, knowing that there was no imminent threat to the country.
“This is not Constitutional,” posted Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky), who had been vocalizing opposition to the strikes and had proposed legislation to stop them.
When Speaker Mike Johnson posted that the Congress did not have time to authorize because leaders "knew" the country was in "imminent danger" (he points to the nuclear weapons that don't yet exist and accuses Iran of being the "world's largest state sponsor of terrorism"), Massie shot back: "Why didn’t you call us back from vacation to vote on military action if there was a serious threat to our country?"
Rep. Warren Davidson, (R-Ohio), also a veteran, urged caution. "While President Trump’s decision may prove just, it’s hard to conceive a rationale that’s Constitutional. I look forward to his remarks tonight."
"According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop," posted Rep. Jim Himes, (D-Conn).
"It is so grossly unconstitutional," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a rally after hearing the news. "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress, the president does not have the right."
Senator Tim Kaine, (D-Va.) has proposed a Senate version of the War Powers bill which was supposed to get a vote this week. "The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran. And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least 2 or 3 years,'" he posted on X on Saturday. "So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment. I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war."
Of course congratulations have already been streaming in from the hawkish members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle, especially pertinent committee chairmen and ranking members.
"Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate — and correct— decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime," said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east. Well-done to our military personnel. You're the best!"
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said this won't be a forever war and won't involve American boots on the ground, but Trump was right to take "decisive action" because disarming Iran is "for the good of the world."
“We stand with Israel tonight and pray for the safety of its people and the success of this unilateral, defensive action.”
Interest groups including the Republican Jewish Coalition and AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) that have been pushing for this war were quick to thank Trump tonight.
"Today’s successful, targeted military action proves once again that nobody has been tougher on Tehran, or a better friend to Israel, than President Trump," exclaimed the RJC, one of Trump's biggest campaign supporters.
"Tonight will go down in the history books as one of the most consequential orders ever given by a U.S. President. God speed to our heroic war fighters."
Article is being updated as story develops
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Top photo credit: Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo) (Gage Skidmore/Flickr); Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.)(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect); Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)(Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons)
Even as polling indicates that a majority of Trump voters don't want to go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel, it’s been difficult to change GOP minds on Capitol Hill.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t strong conservative voices trying to do just that.
Indeed, some Republicans have come out swinging against the prospects of the U.S. joining Israel in their attacks against Iran. “This is not our war,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky) proclaimed in an X post where he invited colleagues to support his recently introduced War Powers Resolution, which would prevent the U.S. from engaging in any “hostilities” against Iran if passed. “But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) likewise called Republicans pushing conflict with Iran “war pimps.”
“I just don’t see American boys and girls going to a faraway land that many of us couldn’t even find on a map,” Burchett told CNN’s John Berman. “We do not need a three-front war in our lifetime right now. I just don’t think that’s the route to go. There’ll be room for debate, but I think we ought to let the president do his negotiating skills. That’s what I elected him to do.”
Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a vocal supporter of Israel, nonetheless also voiced concern about the U.S. getting dragged into conflict. He told Manu Raju, CNN’s Chief Congressional Correspondent, that Israel could act in its own interests. But, he explained, “it’s a very different thing for us to then say, ‘We are going to offensively, affirmatively go strike Iran or insert ourselves into the conflict.’ That to me is — that's a whole different matter…I'd be real concerned about that.”
“I don't want us fighting a war,” Hawley said. “I don't want another Mid-east war.”
Along similar lines, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that “it’s not the U.S.’s job to be involved” in Israel’s war with Iran on NBC’s Meet the Press.
And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) warned that other conservatives’ hawkishness over war with Iran could “fracture” the MAGA movement. “Americans want cheap gas, groceries, bills, and housing. They want affordable insurance, safe communities, and good education for their children. They want a government that works on these issues,” Greene wrote on X Tuesday.
“Considering Americans pay for the entire government and government salaries with their hard earned tax dollars, this is where our focus should be. Not going into another foreign war.”
But while some Republicans want to put a red light on the lurch to intervention, many others are pushing explicitly to participate in it. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D,), for example, said he would support a U.S. decision to strike Iran, or otherwise "assist Israel in getting the job done."
Iran “pledged to wipe out the United States of America. I prefer not to let them get here…I prefer preemptive prevention of war rather than having to end one after it gets to our soil, right?,” Cramer asserted.
"Either you want [Iran] to have a nuclear weapon, or you don't," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters this week. "And if you don't, if diplomacy fails, you use force."
Could support for war come back to bite?
Observers tell RS that lawmakers pushing for war are holding onto dated foreign policy positions — even if such positions are increasingly diverging from the conservative base.
"Most Republican officeholders have not developed a foreign-policy outlook of their own. They take their bearings from what the old-guard conservative movement used to say and from what President Trump says now," Daniel McCarthy, syndicated columnist and editor of Modern Age journal, told RS. "It was similar in 2003, when most Republicans went along with George W. Bush’s Iraq War.”
As Jim Antle, Executive Editor of The Washington Examiner, told RS: “Congressional GOP hasn't caught up [with their base]. [There are] only small numbers of populists and libertarians. Old-school moderates are almost all gone. Those are the restraint-friendly elements of the party.”
"Also Trump is the main man," he added. "If he says bomb, we bomb. If he says peace, we are flipping the peace sign."
In comments to RS, McCarthy highlighted the story of the late Republican Congressman Walter Jones, who realized later in the Iraq War his previous support of the conflict was disastrous for his constituents, a military-heavy district in North Carolina. He was politically sidelined in Congress for his dovish change of heart.
“(He) did exactly what they are doing now. He went along with the zombie-like shuffle to war; he even coined the term 'freedom fries,'" McCarthy said. “But later he was ashamed of how easily he’d been led into supporting a policy that was disastrous for the country and his district. Jones would be horrified if he were alive to see his fellow legislators making the same mistakes. They can avoid that by learning from Jones’s experience.”
Jones’ career suffered because he recanted his Iraq war support. But McCarthy supposes that Republicans who are hesitant to speak against war with Iran might do well to consider the political risks of not speaking out against it.
“Republican officeholders too often believe there’s safety in a crowd, and it’s better to be wrong in a group than to be right on your own," McCarthy said. "But the public turned against the whole party because of Bush’s wars, and anything like a repeat of them will turn the force of populism against the GOP."
keep readingShow less
Official Opening Ceremony for NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Summit 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. (Shutterstock/ Gints Ivuskans)
Official Opening Ceremony for NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Summit 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. (Shutterstock/ Gints Ivuskans)
In the run up to the NATO Summit at The Hague next week, June 24-25, President Donald Trump and his administration should present a clear U.S. plan for peace in Ukraine to the European and Ukrainian governments — one that goes well beyond just a ceasefire.
While it is understandable that Trump would like to walk away from the Ukraine peace process, given President Vladimir Putin’s intransigence and now the new war in the Middle East, he and his team need to state clearly the parameters of a deal that they think will bring a lasting peace. Walking away from the effort to end the war prematurely leaves Washington in continued danger of being drawn into a new crisis as long as the U.S. continues to supply Ukraine with weapons and intelligence.
On the other hand, if Washington abandons the peace effort and stops helping Ukraine, that country’s defenses will be in acute danger of collapse.
The Trump administration therefore needs to use the NATO summit to present Europe and Ukraine with the clear terms of what it regards as a reasonable and practicable peace settlement as the basis for negotiation with Russia. If Kyiv and Brussels accept, then these terms should be presented to Moscow, and if Moscow refuses to negotiate on this basis, then U.S. aid to Ukraine should continue unchanged.
If however the Ukrainians and Europeans reject the proposed terms, then they should be told that their refusal will lead to an end to Washington’s support for Ukraine, and that if European countries wish to continue to support the war, they will have to do so on their own.
This may seem a harsh approach, but in fact it will help the Ukrainian government. For even if leading Ukrainian officials now see that the conditions for peace that Ukraine has set are impossible to achieve, domestic political fears constrain them from changing course.
This is common throughout history. France fought on for years in Indochina and Algeria after it was clear that no French victory was possible, because the French establishment was politically incapable of admitting this. The same was true of the U.S. in Vietnam. The only way that Ukrainian leaders can get away with accepting a compromise peace is if they can truthfully tell their own hardliners that Washington and NATO gave them no choice.
The U.S. administration also needs to show the Russians what they have to gain from a settlement — and by the same token, what they would lose by rejecting it. If the Russian government rejects these terms as a basis for negotiation after Ukraine has accepted them, then U.S. aid to Ukraine should continue, until the Russians are prepared to compromise along these lines.
The peace terms that the U.S. administration should put forward include the following:
The ceasefire line should run along the line where the battlefront stands (with limited possibility for territorial swaps).
Russia and Ukraine pledge not to try to change this line through force, subversion, or economic pressure.
The legal status of all five oblasts (including the parts still held by Ukraine) to be subject to future negotiation under the auspices of the UN, and with reference to the wishes of local populations.
Both sides pledge not to carry out terrorist attacks, subversion, and attempts to undermine sovereignty on each other’s territory (including Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine).
All Western sanctions against Russia are suspended, with a snap-back proviso for violation.
Russian assets held in Europe are paid into a UN fund for the reconstruction of Ukraine, to be split 50:50 between areas controlled by the Ukrainian government and Russia.
Ukraine introduces guarantees for Russian linguistic and cultural rights into the constitution. Russia does the same for Ukrainians in Russia.
Ukraine returns the principle of neutrality to the Ukrainian constitution and abandons its intention of joining NATO.
NATO pledges no further enlargement, and the United States pledges to veto any proposed new candidates.
Russia formally agrees to Ukraine’s EU accession, and EU promises to foster this.
Russia recognizes Ukraine’s right of self-defense and abandons its demand for limits on size of the Ukrainian army.
The U.S. pledges not to provide Ukraine with missiles, main battle tanks, or fighter aircraft.
NATO countries pledge not to send troops to Ukraine; and peacekeepers are drawn from neutral countries under the authority of the UN.
The U.S. pledges not to station U.S. troops in countries on Russia’s borders (including Romania), with a snap-back proviso that this pledge will be canceled if Russia attacks Ukraine again.
The U.S. agrees not to station U.S. intermediate-range missiles in Germany in return for Russia’s withdrawal of its missiles from Kaliningrad and Belarus.
The U.S. and Russia agree to enter into negotiations for a new START treaty.
The UN Security Council creates a Committee on European Security made up of representatives of the five permanent members. If India and/or Brazil agree to send substantial numbers of peacekeepers to Ukraine, they will be added to this committee. In this case, Germany will also be added. The remit of this committee will be to discuss and propose solutions for actual, frozen and potential conflicts on the European continent, and to act as a mechanism for giving the international community early warning of possible impending crises.
The Trump administration should seek public endorsement by NATO of these positions and a second public statement affirming the continued commitment by the United States and other NATO members to NATO as a defensive alliance within its present borders. The United States should reiterate that it will honor its existing formal treaty obligations including its commitment to the defense of existing NATO allies.
It is however under no obligation — neither legal nor moral — to extend those commitments further, in terms of NATO’s membership or NATO’s mission. The United States entered NATO to defend vital U.S. interests in Western and Central Europe, and it was on that basis that the Senate ratified the NATO Treaty in 1949.
Previous U.S. administrations pushed for expansion of NATO territory and mission, with disastrous results; but the Trump administration has adopted a different approach and needs to follow this approach with clarity, consistency, and determination. Any U.S. government has a constitutional right, and a duty to the American people, to declare that due to U.S. commitments and dangers elsewhere, it must reject taking on any extra burdens.
The state of the Ukraine war also illustrates a wider point that the United States and European governments should consider. The advent of nuclear weapons has ended direct war between the great powers, and long may that remain so. Instead, what we have seen is a range of proxy wars, and also actions by the great powers — like the EU threat to block Russia’s maritime trade — that would in the past have been considered acts of war, and would have led to war.
These actions could still do so. And at that point, all the Western and Russian commentators who claim that Russia and the West are “actually already being at war” would discover what actual war really means. So unfortunately would the rest of us.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.